Israelis are Israeli. Palestinians are Palestinian. There is Palestinian law and Israeli law. Two separate places, much like any other places in this world.
Where in the world are the state of Palestine's sovereign rights recognized? Do they have control of their own borders? What is the name of their ambassador to the UN?
What is the name of their ambassador to the UN?
Riyad Mansour. A better example would be "who controls Palestinians' birth register and therefore who is legally a Palestinian?" Or "who controls the currency and decides the monetary policy for Palestinians?". Not to mention water, electricity, gas, communications, movement, even whether or not Palestinians get to sleep on any given night.
Thus the 2 state solution.
There is no Palestinian state. Israel is the (illegal) occupying power and has been since 1967, with a stated intent for the Occupation to be permanent. The system is closely equivalent to South African apartheid, with genocidal intent on top.
Words have meaning. Israel cannot maintain a permanent Occupation, controlling everything and everyone entering or exiting the Occupied Territories, and also pretend that Palestinians are responsible for their own wellbeing. That's not how it works and if you were under the impression that it is, you have some reading to do.
There are no Israeli in Palestine. They were forcibly removed by Israel years ago. There was no occupation. Words have meaning.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand on that because it looks like a denial of reality. Are you under the impression that Israel is keeping Israelis under occupation?
There are many older Israelis who regard themselves as Palestinian Jews ("I didn't come to Israel, Israel came to me"). There are many Israelis living in the Occupied Territories, and many of the non-militant amongst them say they would choose to become Palestinians in the event of a two state solution.
I'm not sure if you know these people exist but you also seem to be having trouble acknowledging that Palestinians exist and are the ones who are living under occupation and that is ... a bit of a headfuck. Can you explain yourself a little more clearly?
Israel's plan of unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and North Samaria put forward by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was carried out on 15 August 2005. The purpose of the plan was to improve Israel's security and international status in the absence of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
There are Palestinians that do live in Israel, and are therefore under Israeli law. Sometimes those laws can be onerous.
Ever heard of the West Bank? Know anything about the blockade of Gaza? Which planet are you on?
I'm curious: do you consider every single military occupation an "apartheid"? I think this concept took hold in western media with the recent Oct 7 attacks but the reality is Gaza and South Africa have very little in common. Apartheid, definitionally, was used to describe a very particular situation and set of circumstances that affected people of color within a singular state. You wouldn't say 'Russia is committing "apartheid" because they occupied Crimea', would you? Don't get me wrong: there is clearly a military occupation in place and an ongoing war along with a blockade. But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right? What am I missing?
do you consider every single military occupation an “apartheid”?
Most military occupations are not done with the intent of stealing the land and replacing the existing population with settlers. The British occupation of Northern Ireland did have characteristics of apartheid, and is probably the closest parallel available to Palestine/Israel.
But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right?
Area C forms a contiguous territory on 61% of the West Bank, and is administered solely by Israel via the Judea and Samaria Area administration. As of 2015, it is home to 150,000 Palestinians[3] in 532 residential areas, and roughly 400,000 Israelis[4] in 135 settlements and more than 100 unrecognized outposts.
In contrast, Areas A and B are subdivided into 165 enclaves of land that have no territorial contiguity.[2] Area A is exclusively administered by the Palestinian National Authority; Area B is administered by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Area A comprises approximately 18% of the total territory of the West Bank and Area B about 22% of the territory, together home to some 2.8 million Palestinians.[5]
The last Palestinian elections were held in 2006 and Hamas won a landslide in both Gaza and the West Bank, a reaction to the corruption of the PA and its willingness to act as little more than a security service for Israel.
Hamas set about expelling the PLO (a group of secular parties dominated by Fatah) from Gaza. In response the PLO (which is essentially synonymous with the PA these days) pulled off a coup in the West Bank and installed itself there, without the consent of the Palestinian people.
I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I'm still not convinced that Apartheid, definitionally, accurately describes this situation. I think it would be a lot more helpful if people familiarized themselves with the origins of SA Apartheid. You are right that the Oslo accords did not confer a Palestinian state, but the option was proffered multiple times but the Palestinians did not accept the proposed boundaries. I'm familiar with the zones. You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs. That being said, I do agree that not only the settlements need to stop but the land within area C that was taken by settlements should be reverted to Palestinians.
Yoi have a great deal of reading to do. Look for sources that you are unlikely to have been exposed to because what you have been exposed to so far is garbage.
Thank you. I'm actually familiar with the brief that SA put forward to the ICJ and it's very peculiar. I've skimmed through the brief (not news articles referring to it, but the actual document itself) and there are lots of odd inaccuracies which I wasn't expecting at this level. That being said, this still doesn't answer the question of the application of the term 'apartheid'. Can we get a clear definition before we move forward?
Look, you just posted:
You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs.
It is really hard to know what is going on in your head for that to make sense. Whatever it is you're reading, it's not given you any handle at all on what is going on, or even what Apartheid is.
Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have retained limited security relations with the Israeli counterparts in the IDF and Shin Bet since re-establishment of relations in 2005. The parties cooperate on prevention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activity in the West Bank, which is considered a threat by both parties.
Palestinian Labor is also heavily exploited as they have no workers rights either: Haaretz, MEE, 972, CMEC
A 3+ state solution with a federal union of independent lower states for Israel and Palestine would actually solve the problem. Broaden your horizons.
This has the same problem as the two state solution - the settlements have stolen Palestinian land. If you can't resolve that issue for the two state solution, it's still a problem for 3+.
So fucking what, that can be resolved diplomatically at the first levantine congress. I'll do the writing if they want. The two state solution fails to create a venue at which to resolve these problems and Israel will not submit to UN authority except by force, and Palestine does not have a seat at the table with the UN. I seriously think it's time for the United States to intervene militarily.
Israelis are Israeli. Palestinians are Palestinian. There is Palestinian law and Israeli law. Two separate places, much like any other places in this world.
Where in the world are the state of Palestine's sovereign rights recognized? Do they have control of their own borders? What is the name of their ambassador to the UN?
Riyad Mansour. A better example would be "who controls Palestinians' birth register and therefore who is legally a Palestinian?" Or "who controls the currency and decides the monetary policy for Palestinians?". Not to mention water, electricity, gas, communications, movement, even whether or not Palestinians get to sleep on any given night.
Thus the 2 state solution.
There is no Palestinian state. Israel is the (illegal) occupying power and has been since 1967, with a stated intent for the Occupation to be permanent. The system is closely equivalent to South African apartheid, with genocidal intent on top.
Words have meaning. Israel cannot maintain a permanent Occupation, controlling everything and everyone entering or exiting the Occupied Territories, and also pretend that Palestinians are responsible for their own wellbeing. That's not how it works and if you were under the impression that it is, you have some reading to do.
There are no Israeli in Palestine. They were forcibly removed by Israel years ago. There was no occupation. Words have meaning.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand on that because it looks like a denial of reality. Are you under the impression that Israel is keeping Israelis under occupation?
There are many older Israelis who regard themselves as Palestinian Jews ("I didn't come to Israel, Israel came to me"). There are many Israelis living in the Occupied Territories, and many of the non-militant amongst them say they would choose to become Palestinians in the event of a two state solution.
I'm not sure if you know these people exist but you also seem to be having trouble acknowledging that Palestinians exist and are the ones who are living under occupation and that is ... a bit of a headfuck. Can you explain yourself a little more clearly?
Israel's plan of unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and North Samaria put forward by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was carried out on 15 August 2005. The purpose of the plan was to improve Israel's security and international status in the absence of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
There are Palestinians that do live in Israel, and are therefore under Israeli law. Sometimes those laws can be onerous.
Ever heard of the West Bank? Know anything about the blockade of Gaza? Which planet are you on?
I'm curious: do you consider every single military occupation an "apartheid"? I think this concept took hold in western media with the recent Oct 7 attacks but the reality is Gaza and South Africa have very little in common. Apartheid, definitionally, was used to describe a very particular situation and set of circumstances that affected people of color within a singular state. You wouldn't say 'Russia is committing "apartheid" because they occupied Crimea', would you? Don't get me wrong: there is clearly a military occupation in place and an ongoing war along with a blockade. But Palestinians are self governing people who elect their own leaders and are self managed, right? What am I missing?
Most military occupations are not done with the intent of stealing the land and replacing the existing population with settlers. The British occupation of Northern Ireland did have characteristics of apartheid, and is probably the closest parallel available to Palestine/Israel.
No. The Oslo accords established a Palestinian government but not a Palestinian state. Israel retained complete control of Area C, partial control of Area B, and the ability to blockade Area A..
The last Palestinian elections were held in 2006 and Hamas won a landslide in both Gaza and the West Bank, a reaction to the corruption of the PA and its willingness to act as little more than a security service for Israel.
Hamas set about expelling the PLO (a group of secular parties dominated by Fatah) from Gaza. In response the PLO (which is essentially synonymous with the PA these days) pulled off a coup in the West Bank and installed itself there, without the consent of the Palestinian people.
I just wanted to say thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I'm still not convinced that Apartheid, definitionally, accurately describes this situation. I think it would be a lot more helpful if people familiarized themselves with the origins of SA Apartheid. You are right that the Oslo accords did not confer a Palestinian state, but the option was proffered multiple times but the Palestinians did not accept the proposed boundaries. I'm familiar with the zones. You yourself concede that Israelis are living within Area C, so it is not exclusively segregated to Palestinians/Arabs. That being said, I do agree that not only the settlements need to stop but the land within area C that was taken by settlements should be reverted to Palestinians.
Yoi have a great deal of reading to do. Look for sources that you are unlikely to have been exposed to because what you have been exposed to so far is garbage.
You could do worse than read around why South Africa is the lead country in this case. Or why Ireland are such staunch allies to the Palestinians.
Thank you. I'm actually familiar with the brief that SA put forward to the ICJ and it's very peculiar. I've skimmed through the brief (not news articles referring to it, but the actual document itself) and there are lots of odd inaccuracies which I wasn't expecting at this level. That being said, this still doesn't answer the question of the application of the term 'apartheid'. Can we get a clear definition before we move forward?
Look, you just posted:
It is really hard to know what is going on in your head for that to make sense. Whatever it is you're reading, it's not given you any handle at all on what is going on, or even what Apartheid is.
There are some excellent Israeli sources. Try , B'Tselem and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
No, I think we are approaching the word from two different angles. It would be helpful if we knew how you define apartheid.
Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have retained limited security relations with the Israeli counterparts in the IDF and Shin Bet since re-establishment of relations in 2005. The parties cooperate on prevention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activity in the West Bank, which is considered a threat by both parties.
Under Israeli Occupation and 50 years of dispossession Palestinians are denied civil rights and subject to Military Court
At the mercy of Settler Violence, Torture and Abuse in Interrogations, have No freedom of movement, and also denied Water stolen and extorted by the occupying forces.
Palestinian Labor is also heavily exploited as they have no workers rights either: Haaretz, MEE, 972, CMEC
A 3+ state solution with a federal union of independent lower states for Israel and Palestine would actually solve the problem. Broaden your horizons.
This has the same problem as the two state solution - the settlements have stolen Palestinian land. If you can't resolve that issue for the two state solution, it's still a problem for 3+.
So fucking what, that can be resolved diplomatically at the first levantine congress. I'll do the writing if they want. The two state solution fails to create a venue at which to resolve these problems and Israel will not submit to UN authority except by force, and Palestine does not have a seat at the table with the UN. I seriously think it's time for the United States to intervene militarily.